Not only are the political policies at hand an issue with potential violence, the race card is as well. Many Americans, unfortunately, are still racist. However, the issues of political violence cannot solely be blamed on the acts of racism. Many Americans are upset with the current administration for the acts of changing our American society. This article shows the fears of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, FBI, CIA, and other political leaders on the potential for political influenced violence.
Keep in mind that less than a month ago, close to a million people were at the front door of the white house, PEACEFULLY. Though people fear that political based violence may occur, keep in mind the 60's when peaceful protesting was quite common against the Vietnam War. We as Americans are not neccessarily a violent people, but we will not sit idly by as our freedoms are at stake.
Pelosi Fears Political Violence
Friday, September 25, 2009
Political Violence
Immigration Reform?
Ever since the talks of Healthcare Reform, one of the major issues has been whether illegal immigrants will receive the public option healthcare. Or will they be granted amnesty by the Obama administration, thus surpassing the issue of the legalization process. Here is a little comfort that we can hope for. CNN reports on the upcoming issue of Immigration Reform and where the Obama administration stands on it.
Immigration Reform
Looking to the current polls of the Obama administrations approval ratings, it seems that when the November senatorial elections arise, we may very well see a shift in opposition to the current policies that are trying to be passed.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The only exception
The only exception of the 4th Amendment is that in an emergency in order to save or protect a life.
To read more please see: The exception
To some this may be a mortifying experience after being traumatized. To know that the emergency personel will have free access to your privacy without legal documenation may cause mental anguish especially in those who have something to hide.
I feel that in this instance an emergency personnel has the right to enter a private situation for the emergency purpose but should not be able to exploit the contents in the situation. A warrant may be issued and then the contents of the situation exploited but not until the warrant is obtained.
Where do you stand on the extingent circumstance?
Are we losing our 4th slowly but surely?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
My last American Government proffessor(long story) was very concerned with the usage of our 4th amendment. He said that we are slowly forgetting our 4th amendment. This is why:
Under the 4th amendment, a U.S. citizens privacy is protected. However, do to fear of the government and law enforcment officials, we are slowly giving up that freedom. I.E. if a police officer knocks on the door, you do not have to let him in unless he has a warrant or probable cause.
If you are stopped by an officer, they cannot search your car without consent from you, probable cause, or a warrant. Many people are relinqueshing their 4th amendment rights by giving consent out of fear.
This is a story of someone who did not relinquesh his 4th amendment right.
The 3rd in a cartoon
Can I stay at your house?
The third amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
After our discussion in class the other day, I've come to a closer understanding of this amendment. This protects the residents of a home from being forcibly bullied into giving up their space, providing food and clothing, and allowing personal access to their lives whether it be in time of war or peace. Unless ordered by the law, a family does not have to quarter soldiers in their homes against their will.
See Quartering Act at http://www.harlingen.isd.tenet.edu/coakhist/amrev.html
This is an instance as why we have the 3rd amendment.
The 2nd Amendment #2
When it comes to the right to bear arms, where does it stop? We're allowed to carry rifles and shotguns for hunting. We can legally carry pistols and revolvers(IDK if this a modern gun or not, I'm not very gun savvy). We are allowed to conceal and carry at the age of 24. Under the 2nd amendment we are allowed to have guns for hunting, military/militia use, and self defense. It does not permit us the usage of weaponery for the use against another individual just for the purpose of killing. I respect that people enjoy their rights to guns and that some people see it as a neccessary for their lifestyle. Do you think this is an OK promotion? Gun giveaway with no background check as long as you have some sort of gun safety knowledge? I'm not sure how I feel about this but I know that it's not sitting to easy with me. But it is the rights of whomever wants this AK-47 under the 2nd amendment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32918771/
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
What about the 2nd Amendment?
The 2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
_________________________________________________________________________________
This amendment gets into the issue of what is considered a militia and what is the extent to what arms can be beared and for why.
Militia
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
As defined in a Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a militia is an organized militant group ordained by the law. Which puts into realization that a group of men who carry guns saying that they are fighting for our rights, does not constitute them as a militia. A militia acts when called on by the law or if a situation where the federal government acts against the common people occurs, the militia is the peoples army.
Here is a US national militia directory. Included on this site is a list of every active state militia by county/city.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm
If a group is not regulated by law officials but calls themselves a militia and act against the people to "prove a point" they cannot be considered a militia they are just another gang. We spend thousands of dollars a year on gang related inquiries, but we don't investigate into a group who declare themselves a militia. The word militia is not protected by the constitution but the definition is. What defines a militia is that they are retaliating an attack from a federal position, called upon by those who regulated them, and for the protection of the people of their state.
My late preamble entry #2
pre.am.ble /ˈpriˌæmbəl, priˈæm-/ [pree-am-buhl, pree-am-]
–noun
1. an introductory statement; preface; introduction.
2. the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows.
3. a preliminary or introductory fact or circumstance: His childhood in the slums was a preamble to a life of crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1350–1400; ME < ML praeambulum, n. use of neut. of LL praeambulus walking before. See pre-, amble
__________________________________________________________________________________
The word preamble is just a simple everyday word, but to an American it is so much more.
To an American the word Preamble means the ability to speak. To speak for ourselves, to speak of our families, to speak for our country. Without the preamble that states, "WE THE PEOPLE" we would not be a people we would be the servants of our government, where it is our government which serves us. WE THE PEOPLE gives us the power to choose those who speak on our behalf. We have the power to speak against those who act against us. Without WE THE PEOPLE we may not be a united country. So stand up and become WE THE PEOPLE!
My late preamble entry
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
What does this mean to me? Just this paragraph alone means that as a people of this country we have the capability to run our own government. The people that we promote and elect work for us. We have the power to tell them "No, we don't want government run healthcare" or "Yes, we want more funding for public schools." As a people we can stand up for ouselves as a country against the wrongs of those who may not want to promote a country but promote themselves. As a people we have the right to decide what is best for ourselves, our kin, and our country. One voice may not have enough power to change but as a people we have a voice of millions.
An example of when we had the power of We The People was the Civil Rights Movement. see: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O119-CivilRightsMovement.html
The impact of the Civil Rights Movement on Washington is still relevant today. We no longer have the seperatism and the acts of violence towards the minorities that we did at the beginning of the 20th century.
As a member of this country, seeing that banning together as one can have a lasting impact gives me hope on the tribulations we face in our future.
If you are not happy then stand up and let your government know. Keep in mind to not just tell them you don't like something but give them a way to fix it.
As a people we have the voice of power.
Government Run Student Loans
I just want everyone to know what this Healthcare Reform has been shadowing. As we take more notice of the Healthcare Reform, underlying is the Student Loan Reform Plan. How many people will actually be able to get their loans under FFEL? As a student under the age of 24, my financial aid capabilities are limited. My parents are middle class Americans, making too much to qualify for aid but don't make enough to get ourselves through. Even though I pay my own bills, make my own income, and live on my own, because I am not 24 I have to rely on how much income my parents make. Which means I am only qualified for student loans. I am completely uncomfortable with a program in which the government has 100% control of student loans. In 1993, the direct loan was a "public option" and as of this week, the house will most likely pass the Student Loan Reform making the "public option" the only option. For more information, see this article.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1924128,00.html?cnn=yes
